https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384865 The Tribunal found the order passed under section 263 by the Pr.CIT-1 to be invalid due to being served after a significant delay of 9 months, exceeding the prescribed time limit. Relying on legal precedents emphasizing timely communication of orders, the Tribunal quashed the order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in order communication under the Income Tax Act for procedural fairness and legal compliance. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384865 The Tribunal found the order passed under section 263 by the Pr.CIT-1 to be invalid due to being served after a significant delay of 9 months, exceeding the prescribed time limit. Relying on legal precedents emphasizing timely communication of orders, the Tribunal quashed the order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in order communication under the Income Tax Act for procedural fairness and legal compliance. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384865